guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Gares Redstorm/Action
I'd like to apologise to everyone for any wrong i've caused, new years resolution to not be a dick :) — Skuld 18:12, 5 January 2007 (CST) Action / expectations I posted this originally as a reply in my talk page - but belongs over here ... :I've been thinking of writing up something similar in my own user space. :I also wonder if we should propose a porting of Wikipedia:No personal attacks over to GuildWiki. We've never needed such a policy in the past; but the situation has been growing progressively worse in recent months. --- Barek (talk • ) - 18:30, 5 January 2007 (CST) ::I agree in principle that the Wiki's flow and respect for every member should be protected at all cost. However, I think the problem with the Builds section (the unnamed namespace in your page) is that we are allowing people to vote on other people's builds. I believe this is what is at the core of this crisis. It's just going to keep causing friction over and over. When the user base was fairly small and the users known to each other, voting was actually a good idea. Right now however, it's a very bad idea. ::Because we are not a fan site with mods and regular users and so forth, anyone can post a build and anyone can vote on it. This means that the mighty Last of Master can get on here and post the best warrior build ever and enough dorks can vote it down, and vice versa, Johnny B. Noob can come in and post the crappiest build ever and the same dorks can make the build pass with flying colors. There just aren't enough people voting to make the voting process truly a vetting process, especially when things get personal and there is malicious intent on either side. ::On Guru, you post your build and people comment on it (positively or negatively) and it's your choice to respond to them or not. But unless there is something wrong with the build (like it's a rip-off or something), the comments do NOT affect your build, it doesn't get moved into the lime light or out of the spot light. However, here voting has a consequence (favored, unfavored, deleted), which makes authors very defensive. ::So, in short, I don't think your proposal will make the stakes any lower or lessen the friction in the builds section. Just like GW:1RV is being pulled by everyone in a dispute (you RVed first, no you did!) you'll see GW:GARES being refrenced a lot but respected little. I think we are fostering the seeds of conflict when we allow the present voting system. Just have people post their builds, diallow anyone else to edit them (other than for mistake correction) and then anyone who wishes to approve, disapprove or suggest modifications must do so in the talk page. If you want to help users find good builds easily, then put a rating system that requires like 10 thumbs up and then have it monitored by an admin for corruption. But there should be no unfavored or deleted section. --Karlos 18:45, 5 January 2007 (CST) :::Karlos, The problem that I see is enforcement. There's no technical way to restrict a build to only editing by the owner. So, to enforce this, we either need to look at the history to verify who created each build - or rely on each build author to monitor every build they ever submit for as long as the wiki exists - or scrap the build namespace and mandate that all builds should exist solely in the user's own namespace. :::Of the three, I think that the third is the only practical one - but I certainly don't support it myself. I agree that the builds section needs a lot of attention to help its current situation - but the solution of removing a review process just makes the related categories that much worse for actual in-game use. You're then forced to surf vast lists of poor builds in the hope of finding some scattered few jewels in the muck. I suppose each user could have their own list of favorite builds within their namespace so that they can reference what they find easilly - but I see this more as a recipe for further redundancy and clutter in the already convoluted user namespace. :::Perhaps you have other solutions that I'm missing here - but that's what I'm seeing at this point in your proposal. --- Barek (talk • ) - 18:58, 5 January 2007 (CST) ::::Actually, my statement was not a proposal, though I like GW:GARES ;) It's not my way to see people act abusively to other people. It's been that way from when I was a kid to now and is why I've picked jobs in the past such as being a bouncer for 5 years. ::::I tried to make the statement as general as possible, though any regular contributor knows what I was referring to. It's not meant to just for the Builds section, but for all users everywhere. I'm sure I sound like a hardass, but it seemed necessary I post it to show that it is a serious issue, at least to me and I will act on it. — Gares 19:52, 5 January 2007 (CST) :::::Do you have an opinion on if Wikipedia:No personal attacks should be ported into GuildWiki? --- Barek (talk • ) - 20:13, 5 January 2007 (CST) ::::::It's a very thorough policy. I like the examples as it makes it more clear what is and what isn't deemed as abuse. I actually like it all-around, though I hope I never see a death threat on Guild Wiki. The consequences do not mention anything regarding a warning first and I always like to try to give people a second chance. Something like that does seem to be warrented given recent and continual events. — Gares 21:30, 5 January 2007 (CST) :::::::Sounds ok to me but there's a few things that need to be tweaked, we don't have an Arbitration Committee and I'm not sure I like our rarely used arbitration process for the major stuff. --Xasxas256 23:09, 5 January 2007 (CST) ::::::::If ported, I would suggested re-writes to fit it within our existing structure. We currently don't use arbitration committees for ban or deletion disputes and I don't see a reason to create one for this either. Currently, as the only active user with Bureaucrat status in the wiki, LordBiro has the role of final arbitration for any disputes that involve admins, and I think that should carry over into any new policies as well. --- Barek (talk • ) - 23:42, 5 January 2007 (CST) :::::::I forgot to comment on GW:GARES itself! I agree that we should probably police the builds section more tightly from now on, to avoid major incidences occuring. At least I think that's what this is alluding too... --Xasxas256 23:25, 5 January 2007 (CST) ::::::::I think Xas missed the point by a hair. My statement was not for the builds section. It was a warning of what I am going to do from now on and I hope others would agree its the right thing and follow. If someone badmouthes on a user talk page, they'll be dealt with. If it happens in the Talk:Afflicted Yijo article, they'll be dealt with. It's never been about the builds section, its about users and how they treat others. ::::::::As to the porting of the wiki policy, my suggestion was vague apparently. I like the idea of the policy, but I do not want to copy it verbatum. Obviously we don't have a lot of the things mentioned in that policy and some of it does not apply to Guild Wiki. The fact that it is unofficially ok for Wikipedia users to blank personal attacks on any talk pages, that's not the way we do it around here. That is one example and another is, yes, we do not have an arbitration committee. — Gares 10:24, 6 January 2007 (CST) Left Justify - sorta feel like a small fry commenting atm=P but i agree with implementing Wikipedia:No personal attacks if possible. I know ive made the mistake in the past but i try not to. I have dealt with and tried to mediate as best i could 2or 3 situations that this woul cover recently. Personally i feel that if you feel strongly about a subject (especially an argument) here its probably better to have a 3rd part take a look at the situation. People have ben getting really heated and its only making things worse. well im rambling now so i'll just say that My PoV here most closely reflects that of Barek and i will personally be keeping more of an eye on my reaction to others. Thx for taking the time to think of a fix for all this gares --Midnight08 00:31, 6 January 2007 (CST) :Maybe I'm just confused but is this a...proposed policy? Statement of personal commitment to action? Example you would like others to follow? Whatever it is, I am in favor and heartily support the GW:GARES campaign. Entropy 20:35, 6 January 2007 (CST) Per your request I heartily endorse GW:GARES, although I hope to rarely see it have to be used (sadly I know that is unlikely to be the case). --Rainith 22:48, 8 January 2007 (CST) Proposed policy I've ported Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks over to GuildWiki, with a few changes to fit our structure. Everyone with interest in this may want to take a look and comment on the talk page of Project:No personal attacks. --- Barek (talk • ) - 16:28, 13 January 2007 (CST) :I've read it, however I am short on time at the moment. I will comment on it when I get back. — Gares 16:38, 13 January 2007 (CST) ::Thanks for catching that site reference error ;-) --- Barek (talk • ) - 16:40, 13 January 2007 (CST) Action Agreeed! --[[User:Sigm@|'SigmA']] 14:22, 12 February 2007 (CST)